New Whistleblower Regulator: The Case for a Whistleblower Protection Authority (WPA)

Whistleblowers have triggered some of Australia’s most sweeping reforms, from the Banking Royal Commission to the Robodebt scandal. Their willingness to speak up, often in high profile cases, has exposed corruption, malpractice and systemic failures.

Yet, despite their crucial role, many whistleblowers in Australia are left to navigate a fragmented, confusing and often hostile system, rarely receiving the protection they deserve.

This article examines the case for establishing an independent, centralised Whistleblower Protection Authority (WPA) in Australia – a regulator with the power to safeguard those who report wrongdoing and enforce anti-retaliation laws. We explore why reform is urgent, draw lessons from global best practice, outline proposed design principles and explain why independence is critical to restoring trust and delivering real protections.

Why Australia Needs a WPA

Australia’s current whistleblower protections are dispersed across a “patchwork” of laws and regulatory bodies – including ASIC, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Department of Defence – with varying (and sometimes conflicting) rules for public servants, private sector employees, contractors and nonprofits.

While these “co-location” frameworks are intended to offer protection, in practice, they are overly complex and inconsistent, often failing those who need them most. With no truly independent federal body to enforce rights or intervene in reprisals, whistleblowers are often left to fend for themselves.

Real-world cases demonstrate the shortcomings. In the David McBride case, which involved the Department of Defence, the agency acted as both the subject of the complaint and the investigator. The result? Prosecution rather than protection for the whistleblower.

‍

Other major public inquiries such as the “Aged Care,” a scandal where whistleblowers exposed widespread abuse and neglect, and “Witness K”, where a former intelligence officer revealed government wrongdoing at great personal risk, highlight the repeated failure to protect those acting in the public interest.

‍

Increasingly, legal experts, human rights organisations and community advocates are calling for the creation of a single, independent WPA. 

The 2016 Moss Review into the Public Interest Disclosure Act concluded that the co-location model “underperformed” and produced inconsistent outcomes. The Human Rights Law Centre has also highlighted a “lack of independence and support for disclosure recipients” within the current system.
‍

Key Design Principles

‍The proposed independent WPA would replace today’s fragmented system with a specialist, expert-led authority dedicated to protecting whistleblowers. Transparency International Australia, the Human Rights Law Centre and Griffith University have jointly developed 10 design principles for its model:

1. Pro-protection purpose: A statutory mandate for protecting and supporting whistleblowers.
2. Wide jurisdiction: Covering public, private and not-for-profit sectors under a unified framework to close existing legal gaps.
3. Independent support and guidance: Case worker-style assistance, including legal guidance, career advice and psychosocial support, to help whistleblowers navigate complex and stressful situations.
4. Oversight and enforcement: Power to monitor compliance and intervene to stop reprisals when internal processes fail.
5. Legal remedies: Able to bring or support civil proceedings to reinstate whistleblowers, compensate losses, and intervene in cases to prevent unfair prosecutions.
6. Early resolution: Ability to mediate and conciliate conflicts before they escalate.
7. Legal action: The WPA should be able to bring cases directly or intervene when necessary.
8. Clear referral and triage: Efficiently direct reports to the appropriate agency while ensuring oversight.
9. Transparency and reporting: Regular public reporting directly to Parliament on outcomes.
10. Co-operation with state bodies: consistency across jurisdictions and close collaboration at national level.

This model would shift whistleblowing oversight from fragmented, agency-by-agency arrangements towards a single, specialist authority, capable of actively supporting and protecting those who speak up.
‍

Lessons from Overseas: What Works?

‍Australia is not alone in facing these challenges and many international benchmarks exist to reinforce the case for independence.

• The United Kingdom’s Parliament is advancing legislation for an “Independent Office of the Whistleblower” to create a central authority and strengthen protections for those speaking up. Currently, protection is handled by a mix of prescribed regulators. 

• The United States takes a decentralised approach, with no single oversight authority and whistleblower protections spread across multiple agencies. However, its Office of Special Counsel offers federal employees a dedicated path to challenge retaliation, while the SEC Whistleblower Program has paid out billions in rewards for information leading to corporate enforcement actions.
  
  
• The Netherlands’ Dutch Whistleblowers Authority established the “House for Whistleblowers” which provides accessible reporting, protection from retaliation and support, mirroring Australia’s proposed WPA.

• Slovenia’s fully independent anti-corruption commission (CPC) includes a dedicated whistleblower unit and is responsible for implementing the EU Whistleblowing Directive, reporting to Parliament annually.

International best practice is clear: whistleblower systems work best when they have independent oversight, accessible reporting channels and enforcement power. Australia’s current model lacks all three.‍

Why Regulatory Independence Matters

Repeated legal failures, growing public demand for reform and findings from multiple Royal Commissions have made it clear that the current co-location arrangement is no longer fit for purpose. As Professor A. J. Brown of Griffith University observed in 2019, “Australia’s whistleblowing laws need many reforms to make protections real – including a properly resourced whistleblower protection authority.”

‍

Establishing a truly independent Whistleblower Protection Authority (WPA) is no longer theoretical; it has become a core governance priority, with consistent polling also showing strong public support for stronger protections and a dedicated authority.

For corporate leaders, this is not just about compliance or restoring public trust in institutions; it’s about recognising and supporting those courageous enough to speak out, ensuring that exposing wrongdoing is met with protection, not punishment.

‍